Democrats Politicize Las Vegas before Blood Even Dry

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke10/6/17
Before the blood was even dry in Las Vegas, Democrats coast to coast were pushing gun control. Hillary Clinton led the charge, finding time between fainting spells to tweet “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.” (Translation: “Put your politics aside…and accept my politics! Oh, and my grief is never enough because I don’t feel any.”) But I guess, taking Rahm Emanuel’s counsel, leftists “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

The waste, though, is that we’re even talking about this matter in a tragedy’s wake. But since the attacks have been launched, let’s discuss guns.

To use a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, the bad social analyst confines himself to the visible effect; the good social analyst considers not just the effects that can be seen, but those largely invisible and those that must be foreseen. Events such as Sunday’s massacre by murderer Stephen Paddock cannot be missed; they’re horrible, headline-making tragedies.

Not easily seen are the results of a study by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, a liberal Democrat and lifelong ACLU member: he found that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime.

Some dispute this statistic, but whether it’s 2.5 million, 2 million or 1 million isn’t the point. It’s that an untold number of innocent lives are saved because good citizens own guns. This couldn’t happen were firearms outlawed. But since outlaws don’t follow laws, many of them would still have guns and, perhaps, even more innocents would be lost each year.

Yet what currently is lost, on many anti-gun activists, is reality. We hear, for example, that the U.S. is uniquely violent and that countries with strict gun-control are safer. Untrue.

According to Index Mundi, the U.S. ranks only 99th on a list of 191 nations in intentional homicide rate — in the bottom 50 percent.  Moreover, there is no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun-control laws and lower murder rates.

Countries such as Russia, Mexico and Brazil have far stricter gun laws than we do but also more homicide. Then, as Professor Thomas Sowell wrote in 2012, “Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.”

This phenomenon is apparent everywhere. Journalist Piers Morgan (who still has never accepted my challenge to a debate) loves to mention how his Great Britain has a lower murder rate than does the U.S. But the U.K. has always had a lower murder rate — even back when both nations had few gun-control laws — and the U.K.’s gun-crime rate is higher now than it was then. Moreover, states such as New Hampshire have lower homicide rates than does Britain despite having far higher gun-ownership rates.

Some further examples:

  • Vermont has approximately the same gun-ownership rate as Louisiana but one-eighth the murder rate.
  • Japan has strict gun laws and, on paper, the world’s fifth-lowest homicide rate (critics note that, owing to the application of different criteria, that country’s actual rate is double the reported one). Yet Japanese-descent Americans living in the U.S. — with relatively easy access to firearms — have a murder rate half that of Japanese living in Japan.
  • As Dr. Sowell also informed, the rate of gun ownership “is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
  • People over 50 are more likely to own guns than those under 50, but the latter have a higher murder rate

So if there’s no correlation between gun-control/ownership and murder rates, what is the correlation?

Demographics.

As Sowell also tells us, it’s not the guns — it’s the people.

Generally speaking, places with demographics like South Africa’s have murder rates like South Africa’s. Places with demographics like Britain’s have murder rates like Britain’s. This isn’t as politically correct to talk about as slamming guns is, but reality doesn’t exist to be fashionable.

The U.S. already has more than 22,000 gun-control laws, yet every tragic shooting is exploited by gun-grabbing demagogues who, generally fooling themselves as much as others, never articulate a vision, their end game. Will Utopia be realized with the next 5,000 guns law? The next 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? Actually, in their heart of hearts, the anti-gun crowd wants only one more: that dictating the seizure of all guns.

This is always denied, but just finish the “progressive” progression here. If every tragedy were followed by more anti-gun laws, would we not end up incrementally where leftists deny they want to go suddenly?

If anti-gun laws are a good idea now, they’ll also be a good idea later, when the emotion surrounding Las Vegas has subsided. But since facts and reason aren’t on the leftists’ side, they’re left to appeal to emotion — and that’s most easily done when blood is still on the ground.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (145 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Democrats Politicize Las Vegas before Blood Even Dry

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    It has also been pointed that most American burglaries are “cold”, with the residents out, whereas most burglaries in Britain are “hot”, with the residents in. British burglars know they don’t have to worry about victim self-defense.

    One gun-control proposal that may be a good idea is regulating bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to mimic automatic weapons, as we already do automatic weapons. This could be traded for concealed-carry reciprocity and deregulation of sound suppressors if the GOP had the ability to push through such deals.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      A skilled shooter does not need full auto. We were taught to only fire 4-5 rounds even on full auto. Why, by the time that 4 or 5th round is downrange the probability of actually hitting your target in diminished by 50+ percent.This guy was just spraying rounds a random targets. Guys that do that on the battlefield even once spend the rest of their enlistment pealing potatoes.

      So if the GOPe wants to give up bumpstocks for open and concealed carry nationwide its ok by me. I don’t hold much hope but OK.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Nancy Sinatra tweeted:

    Murderous Members of NRA Should Face Firing Squad

    Should we take her seriously but not literally? There’s just been an atrocious act of mass murder and this hysterical nitwit (sorry, Frank, facts are facts) wants to murder approximately 5 million people?

    They said Hitler didn’t really mean it. Well, we should take her seriously.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A pity that such a fine singer would have such an empty head.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        We need to be calm, rational, reasoned and understand that the kind of violent rhetoric and lunacy of Nancy Sinatra is precisely why we need the second amendment. Her type is stupid, naive, and not only puts far too much trust in government but she is the type of person that our Constitution is set against. We give our government limited powers because we know the lunatics are always at the edge waiting to step in and kill masses of people because those people simply make the lunatics angry because of their very existence.

        When a prominent person says that five million people who have committed no crime should be lined up and shot, there should be public outrage. We overlook the seriousness of the lunatics at our own risk.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      One more thing she did not learn from her father. When to shut up.

  3. Steve Lancaster says:

    “According to Index Mundi, the U.S. ranks only 99th on a list of 191 nations in intentional homicide rate — in the bottom 50 percent.”

    If you adjust to take out the high homicide rate in urban centers, Chicago, Detroit, DC et al, the national rate puts us among the bottom 5 world wide. The interesting fact is that the highest gun crime stats all come from cities that have been democrat controlled for decades and have the most strident gun laws.

    I wonder what would have happened if there had been return fire in Vegas, perhaps he might have decided to seek a softer target, but no once again we have a mass murder in a “gun free” zone.

    One the good news/bad news front. In DC the appeals court has struck down the show need clause in the DC code, thus allowing citizens there to actually get permits, and the city has declined to appeal to the Supreme Court, knowing full well that with Gorsich the court will rule against them.

    The bad news is that cities with similar laws will be allowed to continue violating the constitution until a case reaches the Supreme Court.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I saw someplace a point that demographics determines homicide rates here. In areas where the population looks like Britain, we get a homicide rate like theirs. In areas of “diverse” population, we have a high homicide rate.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Sane and sensible comments, Steve. Thank you. You put the c-word, Nancy Sinatra, to shame. What a lunatic.

      The dark truth is that if you excluded the gun crimes committed by blacks in Democrat zones, America then rates a hell of a lot more peaceful. It’s not the NRA members having guns that is the problem. It’s the hoodlums. This is why anyone of good conscience and an ounce of foresight must make the NFL pay for their attempts to blame America for crimes committed by others. Do not watch their damn games. Do not buy their over-priced apparel.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      58 murders in LV in one day=horrific, media and democrats go nuts on gun control
      58 murders in Chicago in 28 days=ho hum, media and democrats can’t find Chicago on a map. No effort by the city to enforce the most extreme gun laws in the state.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Black lives don’t really matter. Black grievance (and votes) matter more. Mattering most to many is White Guilt Matters. In order to avoid being called unsympathetic, at best, or racist, at worse, a white person (who is never any more than his skin color in these situations) must nod his head and tsk-tsk at all the oppression blacks suffer.

        But…if one really wanted to improve the lives of blacks, it is a totally different recipe needed. But then that would be to hold blacks to a different or objective standard. Relativism makes it easy for “sympathetic” whites to be cowards and to just say that some otherwise malignant behavior is “appropriate to the culture.”

        And if anyone is keeping the black man down, it is abortion advocates. Abortion rates for black women are four times that of white women (35% of all abortions).

        When it comes down to it, “Black Lives Matter” means “Black Prejudices Matter.” If one actually cared for blacks they would not let them suffer at the hands of either the Democrat Party or their own hip-hop culture.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          It’s a very great irony that Planned Parenthood, founded by a eugenicist who wanted to cut down on the black population (a notion Darth Bader Ginsburg spoke favorably of a few years ago) would be a sponsor of the Black Lives Matter groups — and that those groups see nothing wrong, or even ironic, with this.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Grievance and prejudice trump reason. It’s probably always been that way. Here at StubbornThings we aim to be more than cogs of one mob or another. I love Frank Sinatra, for instance, but only a fool could not view Nancy Sinatra’s remarks about murdering five million NRA members as emanating from a kook.

            Trump is wrong about many things, but he was right that the Las Vegas shooting was an act of pure evil. Those tied strictly to a narrow ideology are no longer human beings but partisan automatons.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Sadly, Nancy Sinatra isn’t a kook; she’s simply caught up in liberal ideology. A liberal robot — that seems a reasonable description. And how did the original robots (Rossum’s Universal Robots) end up? Rising up against the humans (Karel Capek could be a depressing writer.)

              Rationality was praised by the Enlightenment (which is one reason they rejected religion, seeing it as irrational). The American founders were heavily influenced by this, though not to the degree of necessarily rejecting religion (not even the deists, like Paine and Jefferson, quite went that far).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *